On the Mises Forum, there has been posts stating that Obama, Clinton, and McCain are all socialists. While the veracity of that may or may not be true (it is apparently true to me), big S Socialists of the Marxist variety do no think the 3 are socialist enough.
For example, this article points out all the deficiencies of Obama with respect to the socialist paradigm, http://www.socialistworker.org/2007-1/617/617_05_Obama.shtml.
Isn't it a bit ironic how libertarians/Libertarians are against socialists/Socialists but both of us are against Obama, Clinton, and McCain?
By eladiob in Political Theory
This is the stupidest post I've eve seen.
With all do respect, or perhaps lack thereof, that is the stupidest comment I have ever seen.
Actually, why do you find it stupid?
possibly because it isn't Ironic? I wouldn't conflate the three with socialists. Statists, certainly, but they are certainly not socialists. Since they represent neither of the two groups (libertarian or socialist) It would seem fitting that both groups tend to oppose them.
Perhaps. From observations on this forum, there have been posts which call the three socialists as well as statists. Furthermore, and an obvious fact, but worth stating, all three groups may tend to oppose each other. However, it does appear that the three Statists do have socialist tendencies in their economic polices.
The Socialist Worker goons have the same problem we do: they don't understand incrementalism. I have no doubt that both Obama and Hillary are much further to the left than their platforms. Can you imagine either of them running in a further-left country and cutting taxes and regulations down to their current platform? Of course not.
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
Obama certainly counts as socialist as far as I'm concerned, or at least something close to it. Clinton and McCain seem more reminiscent of corporatists.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
There is nothing a socialist hates more than a different kind of socialist. Witness Hitler vs. Stalin.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power